INX Media case: P Chidambaram's judicial custody extended till Oct 3

New Delhi, Feb 4: Miffed over the controversy created by its former Union minister and Uttara Kannada MP Anantkumar Hegde by his remarks against Mahatma Gandhi, the BJP, it was learnt, has issued a show-cause notice to him. The ruling party came under heavy criticism from the opposition over its MP’s remarks. The opposition has demanded a clarification from Prime Minister Narendra Modi over his party MP’s remarks.

Often in news for his controversial remarks, Hegde, sources said, could also be barred from attending the first parliamentary party meeting of the BJP of the budget session, scheduled on Tuesday. The party had taken a similar approach against its Bhopal MP Pragya Thakur during the last winter session for praising Mahatma Gandhi’s killer Nathuram Godse. Though the BJP leadership was earlier of the view that Hegde should tender an apology over his remarks but the party top brass, it was learnt, decided that it was not enough.

The Congress on Monday launched a scathing attack on the central government over the comments of BJP Lok Sabha MP Ananthkumar Hegde on Mahatma Gandhi. The party demanded that Prime Minister Narendra Modi come to Parliament and clarify his position on BJP leader’s “objectionable” remarks.

Congress party spokesman Anand Sharma said, “we can understand that why one after the other senior BJP leaders are insulting the memory of Mahatma Gandhi. They are disparaging the national movement, the freedom struggle because they are ideological descendents of those who were not only non-participants, but, actively opposed the freedom movement.” He further added, “Parliament is in session. We demand that the Prime Minister come to the House and make his position clear. As I have said, feeds that he is unhappy and angry, we are not concerned with that. In the very ideology, mindset, thinking and language of the BJP, there is violence.”

Asserting that the BJP MP’s statement was condemnable, Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot said the leaders of the saffron party could afford to call the freedom movement a drama as they never fought for the country’s independence. “Such statements reveal their true mindset that they use Gandhi's name just for show and have no regard for him,” he said.

New Delhi, Jan 22: Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has assets worth Rs 3.4 crore, an increase of Rs 1.3 crore from 2015, according to his election affidavit.

Kejriwal's total assets were worth Rs 2.1 crore in 2015.

The cash and fixed deposits of Kejriwal's wife Sunita Kejriwal increased from Rs 15 lakh in 2015 to Rs 57 lakh in 2020.

A party functionary said Rs 32 lakh worth cash and fixed deposits have been received by Sunita Kejriwal as voluntary retirement benefits while the rest are savings.

The cash and fixed deposits of the chief minister increased from Rs 2.26 lakh in 2015 to Rs 9.65 lakh in 2020.

There was no change in the value of immovable assets of his wife while Kejriwal's immovable assets' worth increased from Rs 92 lakh to Rs 177 lakh.

The party functionaries said increase in Kejriwal's immovable assets' worth is due to the increased valuation of the same asset as in 2015.

New delhi, Feb 10: The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutional validity of the SC/ST Amendment Act, 2018, and said a court can grant anticipatory bail only in cases where a prima facie case is not made out.

A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra said a preliminary inquiry is not essential before lodging an FIR under the act and the approval of senior police officials is not needed.

Justice Ravindra Bhat, the other member of the bench, said in a concurring verdict that every citizen needs to treat fellow citizens equally and foster the concept of fraternity.

Justice Bhat said a court can quash the FIR if a prima facie case is not made out under the SC/ST Act and the liberal use of anticipatory bail will defeat the intention of Parliament.

The top court's verdict came on a batch of PILs challenging the validity of the SC/ST Amendment Act of 2018, which was brought to nullify the effect of the apex court's 2018 ruling, which had diluted the provisions of the stringent Act.